Theories of AttributionIntroductionHeider (1958) argued that people are motivated by two primary needs. The need to form acoherent view of the world and the need to gain control over the environment.The desire for consistency and stability and the ability to predict and control make humans behave like niave scientists– rationally and logically testing our own hypotheses about the behaviour of others. Heider believed that we have a basic need to attribute causality because it ascribes meaning to our world.Heider and Simmel Experiment – What do you see?Particpants were asked to interpret a moving picture film in which 3 geometric shapes were shown moving at various speeds in various directions, in and around a rectangle, which could be opened and closed with a “door.”Out of 34 participantsm only 1 participant described the film in geometric terms- the little triangle enters a rectangle and moves around. All the others described the movement in ways indicative to human intentions and motives. This readiness to ascribe human intentionality to objects we know have little or no capacity for these intentions, is a common characteristic of how humans think.Types of Attribution:Attribution is a concept in social psychology addressing the processes by which individuals explain the causes of behaviour and events; attribution theory is an umbrella term for various models that attempt to explain those processes. There are four main types of attribution that fall into two categories, the locus of causality and the locus of control.The locus of causality involves internal and external attributions. An internal attribution is any explanation that located the cause of behaviour as being internal to the person; this can bepersonality, mood or ability. Whereas external attributions is any explanation that locates the cause of behaviour as being external to the person, such as the nature of the situation, social pressure or luck.

As well as this fundamental distinction between internal and external attributions, it is possible to further subdivide types of interference along two other independent dimensions; stability and controllability. Stability refers to the extent to which causes are relatively stable and permanent- natural ability- versus temporary and fluctuating –being drunk. Controllabilityrefers to the extent to which causes can be influenced by others –effort- verses the extent to which they are random–luck.Correspondent Interference TheoryWhen making social influences people try to infer that the action of an actor corresponds to, or is indicative of a stable characteristic. People prefer internal dispositional attributions, over external situational ones as they are more valuable with regard to making predictions about behaviour. If we can find a dispositional cause for behaviour this will help us to fulfil whatHeider argued is our basic drive towards coherence and clarity.Jones and Davis(1965) state that we assess whether there is a correspondence between personality and behaviour by processing three types

of information.

Social Desirabilityrefers to whether the behaviour observed is consistent or counter to social norms. An internal dispositional attribution is more likely when socially undesirable behaviours are observed. People have a tendency to follow social norms to avoid exclusion; therefore behaviour that is socially desirable does not tell us much about people’s personalities.

Choice   refers to whether the behaviour was freely chosen or not. An internal dispositional attribution is more likely when the person being observed has freely chosen the given behaviour.Non-Common Effectsrefers to when a behaviour has a unique consequence. An internal dispositional attribution is more likely when the outcome of that behaviour results in a unique consequence.The Co-variation ModelKellys (1967) covariation model (ANOVA) accounts for multiple behaviours. It also details the processes that result in external as well as internal attributions. The covariation principle states that for something to be the cause of a particular behaviour it must be present when the behaviour is present and absent when the behaviour is absent.From multiple potential causes we ascribe causality to the one that covaries with the behaviour to the greatest amount. The covariation model states that three types of information are crucial for arriving at an internal or external attribution.

 Consensus refers to how much the target audience behave in the same way; if consensus is absent the behaviour has a dispositional cause. Distinctiveness refers to the extent to which the target behaviour is the same in other situations, if distinctiveness is absent it the behaviour has a situational cause.  Consistency refers to the extent to which the target behaves in the same way on different occasions; if this is present the behaviour has a dispositional cause. From multiple potential causes we ascribe causality to the one that covaries with the behaviour to the greatest extent.

Limitations to ModelsA limitation to correspondence interference theory is that the model is limited to single instances of behaviour and focuses on internal attributions. This is an area where the ANOVA model excels, as it recognises that an attribution can be external or internal, and does not ignore either condition.However the ANOVA model shows signs of attributional bias in other areas, people can make attributional decisions in this way, however while people do use all three types of information, they are not all equally attended to, people may pay more attention to the target person information, consistency and distinctiveness, rather than to other information relating to other people in the context, consensus.Correspondent inference theory has many criticsims and has declined in importance as an attribution theory according to Hewstone (1989). For instance, the theory holds that correspondent inferences depend to a great extent on the attribution of intentionality, yet unintentional behaviour (e.g. careless behaviour) can be a strong basis for a correspondent inference (e.g. that the person is a careless person).More generally, although we may correct dispositional attributions in the light of situational factors, this is a rather deliberate process, whereas correspondent inferences themselves are relatively automatic -Gilbert (1995)

Nevertheless, Kelley’s ANOVA model is an idealised portrayal of attribution, people tend to take shortcuts and researchers started to observe a number of systematic errors people were making when asked to make assessments of causality in psychological experiments.According to Nisbett and Ross, there is no guarantee that people are using the covariation principle – they may attribute causality to the most salient feature or to whatever causal agent appears to be similar to the effect.

Models of Attribution

Heider’s 1948 model of attribution comes from his book Psychology of Interpersonal Relations and seeks to explain causal attributions. According to Heider, causal attributions give “order to a chaotic world.” Causal attributions help make behaviour seem more predictable and controllable. In other words, Heider believed that people want to be able to explain behaviour because it helps make them feel the world is more just and understandable. Mainly, this done by attributing behaviour to a stable, enduring personality that remains so despite changes in their behaviour. This is known as ‘person perception.’ The issues with Heider’s model is that as people we do sometimes take context into account, and even if we like to attribute behaviour mainly to disposition, in some contexts it is impossible to ignore the context. For example, if you see someone dancing like a maniac in a club, you are likely to attribute this behaviour to alcohol and the club-context more so than their personality. This is especially true if everyone else in the club is also behaving with less inhibition than normal, which obviously is more than likely. This summates the key issue, which is that behaviour is influenced by both internal causes (disposition) and external causes (context), and unfortunately, Heider’s model does not address context thoroughly.

Correspondent Inference Theory 

Jones and Davis, 1965 attribution model is known as correspondent inference theory. The main hypothesis is that when observing other people, people tend to try and guess which of their actions reflect their disposition. In this scenario, people tend to overestimate which actions are dispositional and which are contextual. Jones and Davis (1965) believe people prefer making

dispositional attributes because concurrent with Heider’s (1948) model, disposition is much more stable over time. However, unlike Heider’s model, the contextual inference theory, takes into account other information when judging which actions are dispositional.

Social desirability information: where or not the behaviour is concordant with social norms. If the behaviour is not concordant with social norms, it is likely the bahviours has a dispositional origin.

Non-norm effects: internal disposition seems more likely when the outcomes of behaviour have a unique effect.

Correspondent information: whether or not behaviour is freely chosen. It is unlikely that context is irrelevant if the behaviour is not freely chosen.

ANOVA Model 

Kelley’s 1967 ANOVA model focused on how people make causal attributions just like Heider’s model. ANOVA, however, considered three causes for causal attribution: the person, the circumstance and the stimulus. Kelley believed that what factor co-varies when the behaviour is present is the factor most likely responsible for the behaviour. These factors include the person, the circumstance and the stimulus.

Information used to make causal attributions:

For the example: Jess is interested in this cute guy from her course. She is nervous to ask him out for drinks because she is unsure if his behaviour towards her means he likes her as well or not. Using the ANOVA model, Jess will try and figure out if Joe is interested in her or not.

– Distinctiveness (Stimulus – Joe)

Joe walks home only with Jess after their lecture and only compliments her: HIGH distinctiveness.

Joe walks home with lots of girls and generally gives out compliments: LOW distinctiveness.

– Consensus (Person – Jess)

Many people in her course have told Jess that they think Joe is interested in her: HIGH consensus.

Only Jess thinks that Joe is interested in her: LOW consensus.

– Consistency (Circumstance)

Joe always walk with Jess after their lecture and compliments her everyday: HIGH consistency.

Joe rarely walks home with Jess after their lecture and has only compliment her once or twice: LOW consistency. 

Deciphering the chart:

If Joe walks home with lots of girls and gives lots of people compliments (low distinctiveness), Joe always walks home with Jess and compliments her (high consistency), but no one else thinks Joe is interested in Jess (low consensus), the likeliest explanation for Joe’s behaviour is Joe’s disposition (person). In other words, Joe’s behaviour is due to his disposition, he is just a flirty  person who just likes Jess as a friend 

If Joe walks home only with Jess and only compliments her  (high distinctiveness), but Joe rarely does this (low consistency) and no else thinks Joe is interested in Jess, the likeliest explanation for Joe’s behaviour is the circumstance. In other words, Joe’s behaviour is due to a one time thing, there was just one day when Joe thought Jess looked especially nice and decided to walk home with her. It is unlikely Joe is interested in Jess 

If Joe only walks home with Jess and only compliments her (high distinctiveness), Joe does this everyday (high consistency) and everyone else also thinks Joe is interested in Jess (high consensus), the likeliest explanation for Joe’s behaviour is Jess (stimulus). In other words, Joe’s behaviour is exclusive to Jess meaning it is very likely he likes her 

Even though this chart is quite good, the supportive experiments have been artificial. The theory is far too artificial in that it assumes people are unbiased and always willing to consider all evidence. In reality, even if people were to have all the information at hand, they wouldn’t necessarily use it. Beattie and Anderson (1995) showed that people do not always use this technique in real life situations.

Attribution Theory and the Fundamental Attribution Error

Attribution theory states that we have a tendency to explain someone's behavior by attributing a cause to his/her behavior. In our effort to try to understand the behavior of others, we either explain their behavior in terms of their personality and disposition (internal), or we explain their behavior in terms of the situation (external). You might, for example, explain your professor's harsh words about class performance as being the result of his angry personality type, or you might attribute it to his disappointment with the overall class performance. If you attribute his harsh words to the angry personality type, then you have made thefundamental attribution error.

The fundamental attribution error is our tendency to explain someone's behavior based on internal factors, such as personality or disposition, and to underestimate the influence that external factors, such as situational influences, have on another person's behavior. We might, for example, explain the fact that someone is unemployed based on his character, and blame him for his plight, when in fact he was recently laid off due to a sluggish economy. Of course, there are times when we're correct about our assumptions, but the fundamental attribution error is our tendency to explain the behavior of others based on character or disposition. This is particularly true when the behavior is negative.

Bibliography:

SHEERAN, P. (2013). Referencing and citation – Harvard style, from PSY110 Social Understanding, Social Communication and Social Places. Psychology. University of Sheffield, Richard Roberts Building on 14th February. Available from: Blackboard.

https://thesalience.wordpress.com/psychology-101/social-psychology/attribution/theories-of-attribution/